Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, on September 28, 2006, the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats were in the minority. I was managing a rule on the floor similar to what we are considering here today to allow specific bills to be considered under suspensions under the rule on a day that suspensions are not permitted under House rules like today.

During debate on that day in September 2006, the then-ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, stated, ``It isn't just what the Congress has done with its time that is so disappointing. It is also what the Congress has not done, all of the challenges it has not addressed.''

Madam Speaker, the same can be absolutely said today about the Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, House Democrats approved a budget that included a tax hike of $683 billion, the largest in American history. Americans cannot afford the Democrat plans to cut the child tax credit in half, to reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise taxes on every single taxpayer. Instead of record-breaking tax increases, this Congress should work to make those tax cuts permanent.

I'm also dismayed that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has not acted to extend the State and local sales tax deduction to States that don't have State income tax. That tax expired on January 1 of this year. The State and local sales tax deduction is important for those States that don't have a State income tax, such as my home State of Washington. Extending this deduction is a matter of fairness that Congress must act to renew as soon as possible.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have also failed to act to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect our country from new terrorist threats by modernizing the seventies-era FISA laws. For over 74 days now, America has been hobbled in the vital work to monitor terrorist communications and detect new plots despite the fact that the Senate has approved a bipartisan plan and sent it over to the House. House Democrat leaders have refused to allow the House to vote on the Senate plan and have refused to go to conference with the Senate.

Madam Speaker, why, I ask, why is an issue of this magnitude being placed on the back burner by Democrat leaders, despite repeated attempts by Republicans to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan plan?

Madam Speaker, the Democrat-controlled House has also failed to address perhaps the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans today, rising gas prices.

Democrat leaders may not like to hear it, but since they took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of a gallon of gas has gone up by over 50 percent. In fact, the cost of gas has gone up by more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Instead, they have spent hours giving speeches trying to blame the President and anyone but themselves for the fact that Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. But, Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things.

And the facts are that gas prices have gone up over a dollar a gallon on the Democrat Congress' watch. The facts are that Democrat leaders promised the American people in 2006 that if they were to control Congress that they had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.''

It's been 16 months of this Democrat Congress, and the promise is nowhere to be seen. This Congress has put forward no plan, has taken no action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices. They promised relief at the pump to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record an article by Investor's Business Daily posted April 29, 2008, and it states, ``This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

Energy: President Bush let the Democrat-led Congress have

it with both barrels Tuesday, lambasting lawmakers for

fiddling while the energy crisis burns. It was a well-

deserved takedown of do-nothing lawmakers.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Madam Speaker, we all know that we must work together, Democrats, Republicans, the House, the Senate and the President, to solve America's pain at the pump. Until this happens, however, we should not deny good ideas from being considered.

Therefore, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any bill that would ``have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' Let's defeat the previous question and show America that Congress is serious about addressing the rising cost at the pump.

With that, I reserve my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, Americans don't want a debate on the problems causing gas prices to dramatically increase. They want a debate on solutions.

Therefore, as I stated a moment ago, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members can offer solutions that have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

As I mentioned, 2 years ago, then-minority leader, now-Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They have controlled Congress for 16 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline is setting record highs. The time is now for the House to debate ideas and solutions for lowering gas prices, and it is time for the Democrats to reveal their plan that they promised 2 years ago.

So, Madam Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any bill to be offered and considered under suspensions of the rule that would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1156, I call up the bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my 10 minutes to the Chair of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the subcommittee Chair of Ways and Means, Mr. Stark.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Allyson Schwartz.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a subcommittee Chair in the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Education Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating, or we will shortly with a vote on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA. And today we celebrate it with a great sense of unanimity and agreement about this legislation. But that clearly was not always true over more than the past decade.

This legislation has been controversial to some. It has had a shifting body of opponents to it over those many years. There are many who tried to ascribe attributes to this legislation that either wasn't intended to address or didn't exist at all. But the opposition was formidable.

But when we celebrate the passage of this legislation today, we must also celebrate the spirit of two women in the House of Representatives that persevered through all of the political debate, as hot it was from time to time, through all of the controversy, through much of the ignorance and misinformation about the legislation, but who, throughout that entire decade, understood the promise of this legislation,

both to those who would not be discriminated against in the future, but also the promise in terms of medical research and information that would become available to promote, not only cures and treatment, but greater scientific understanding of the genome and our make-ups and its impact on our health.

And those two women were Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from New York, and our colleague who is with us in the Chamber today, Judy Biggert from Illinois.

It's one thing to stand here and say we all agree today. But that wasn't the case, and that was what they kept pushing against year after year to get the Congress to understand the importance of this legislation. We come to that understanding rather late, when you consider that many of the States have taken the steps, many Nations have taken this step, but it's terribly important that we do it so people will be assured that no worker will be discriminated against because of his or her genetic information.

As I mentioned, 41 States have already led the way in passing laws to prohibit discrimination to individual health insurance markets. 34 States have passed laws to prohibit employers from discriminating in the workplace. And the Federal Government has banned discrimination against Federal Government employees. Every American deserves this protection.

In the last two decades we've seen incredible scientific advances in the diagnosis and the treatment of once untreatable, undetectable conditions. Scientists now have the incredible ability to identify genetic markers for disease that could and may never occur. Genetic testing can also help prevent diseases by identifying them early.

Despite this amazing potential of genetic testing, advancements have been stifled out of fear of what some may do with the results of those tests. Many Americans forego testing because of that fear, the fear of losing their jobs, the fear of losing their health insurance.

We pit that against the knowledge, the discovery and the treatment that would have been possible to those individuals, but the fear prevented them from coming forward. And this is not an isolated fear.

A 2006 research study showed that 85 percent of the respondents believe that without protections, employers would use genetic information to discriminate. 64 percent believe that insurers would use the information to deny critical coverage.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is clear. Title I of the bill prohibits group health plans and insurers from collecting or requesting genetic information with narrow exceptions. It also protects the privacy of this personal information.

Title II of the bill prohibits employers from collecting or using their employees' genetic information. It also prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in hiring, firing and other terms of conditions of employment based upon the genetic information.

This final bill makes it clear that, even though employers may not be held accountable for violations committed by health plans under title I, employers remain fully liable for any violations of title II, including violations involving health benefits.

It is well settled in this country's employment discrimination laws, such as title VII, the Age Discrimination Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, that it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees in their health benefits.

We intend for the courts to continue to interpret employer obligations under GINA similarly to all other civil rights laws. GINA will protect workers like David Escher, a former worker at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, who discovered his employer was trying to prove his injury was caused by a genetic disorder rather than work-related injury. This is precisely the type of discrimination and misuse of genetic information that we seek to prohibit in this bill.

The protections provided by GINA are long overdue, and Representatives Slaughter and Biggert have fought, over this last decade, for these important changes, these important provisions in the law. And I want to thank them for all of their hard work.

I also want to take a moment to thank the members of my staff, Michelle Varnhagen, Mark Zuckerman, Brian Kennedy, Jody Calemine and Michael Gaffin for all of their efforts.

From Congressman Andrews' staff, Carlos Fenwick.

Congresswoman Slaughter's staff, Michelle Adams, Cindy Pelligrini.

From Congresswoman Biggert's staff, Brian Petersen, Jaime Vickery.

And from Congressman McKeon's staff, Ed Gilroy and Jim Paretti.

From Congressman Dingell's staff, Pete Goodloe, Jeanne Ireland, Jessica McNiece, Gregg Rothchild, and John Ford.

From Congressman Frank Pallone's staff, Bobby Clark.

From Congressman Rangel's and Stark's staff, Cybele Bjorklund and Deb Mizeur for all of their assistance.

And in the Senate, from Senator Kennedy's staff, Dave Bowen, Portia Wu and Lauren McFerren.

And from Senator Snowe's staff, Bill Pewen.

And from Senator Enzi's staff, Ilyse Schuman and Keith Flannagan. And legislative counsel, Ed Grossman, Larry Johnson and Henry Christrup, for all of their assistance and all of the effort that they put in to making the changes and the distinctions between the actions in the House and the Senate, and all of the controversy that this brought with them.

With that, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time so that Ms. Biggert may make her closing remarks. And again, I want to thank her so much. Her membership on our committee makes us very proud. And her political toughness to see this through to the end, along with Louise Slaughter, is a wonderful story that we celebrate also with the passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Francis Collins for all of his work and assistance and guidance to the Congress on this matter and for everything else he does in such a wonderful fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which will prohibit health insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information.

As many of my colleagues are aware, this legislation has been around for quite some time. I have been working on for it more than 7 years, and Congresswoman Slaughter has been working on it for more than 12 years. It's been a long road, and there have been

many times I thought this day would never come; but it is here.

Over this period of time, I have heard stories from my constituents and other individuals across the country about how genetic information was affecting their lives. Quite simply, they are stories of how our laws have failed to keep pace with medical science.

A breast cancer survivor in Chicago told me that even though her doctor recommended she undergo a genetic test to see if she had a 60 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer, which was quite common in the type of breast cancer that they had, she refused the test. She said I can't, I will lose my job.

It isn't that she didn't want to know; quite the opposite. She desperately wanted to know, but she feared if she had an adverse result from the test, she would lose her job. She is not alone; studies show that 85 percent of Americans fear employers will use genetic information to discriminate.

And then there is the woman from Missouri whose sister had suffered from cancer was cautioned by her doctor that undergoing genetic testing would cause her to lose her health insurance. She too chose not to undergo a genetic test. She is not alone; studies show that 84 percent of Americans express concern that health insurance companies would deny coverage based on genetic information.

And then there is the man with a family history of PKD, decided to take a genetic test but chose to use an alias and pay cash rather than bill his insurance just to keep the test out of his medical file. And he also is not alone; 26 percent of genetic counselors themselves admit that they would use an alias and 68 percent said they would pay for the test out of their pocket to protect themselves from discrimination.

The dean of a prominent university in Massachusetts told me that the fear of genetic discrimination was hindering clinical trials, slowing the development of life-saving techniques. At NIH, fear of genetic discrimination is the most common reason people cite for not participating in clinical trials on breast and colon cancers.

Madam Speaker, I have heard these stories over and over again from individuals wanting to know their genetic risk of developing diseases as far ranging as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Tay-Sachs, and PKD.

The sad fact is that these individuals are avoiding genetic tests that would empower them with the information that could save their lives.

So I want to let all people know that when the House passes GINA today, we will be just one step away, and that would be the signing by the President, from realizing the medical benefits of genetic testing. One step away from ensuring that people will be able to take a genetic test without risking their jobs and health insurance. One step away from ensuring that patients can stop using aliases and paying out of pocket to keep their genetic tests secret. One step away from ensuring that individuals will be able to participate in genetic clinical trials without fear of discrimination.

And the last step is the President's signature, and I am happy to say that he is expected to sign this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is clear to me that by passing GINA and freeing people from fear of genetic discrimination, we can unlock the tremendous life-saving and cost-saving potential of genetic research. More Americans will participate in genetic clinical trials, and more Americans will use these technologies to improve their health.

And with these improvements comes the prospect of dramatically reducing the chronic care costs that cripple our health care system. We now have more than 500 different health advocacy and business organizations supporting this bill. Recent surveys shows that 93 percent of Americans believe that employers and insurers should not be able to use genetic information to discriminate.

With numbers like these, it should be no surprise that the House passed this bill last April 420-3, and the Senate passed it last week 95-0, and the President is expected to sign this measure into law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words. And it's been a long road, but we're here, and with your help.

Just let me say that there's three benefits that are so important for this bill. Number one is that people will get a genetic test. And if it shows that they have a propensity for having some disease, they can then take preventive measures and take measures that are going to improve the quality of their life. And it's personalized medicine. People have got to take command of their medical lives.

Second of all, because people will take preventive measures, this is going to reduce the cost of health care. It's going to reduce the cost to businesses because their employees will be taking these preventive measures, and it's going to reduce the cost to health care providers because people, again, will be taking these measures.

And as I said before, through the clinical trials, it will increase the ability to find cures for so many diseases if people get into these.

So with that, I would really like to take a moment to thank Representative Slaughter, Chairman Slaughter of the Rules Committee one more time, Greg Walden of Oregon who has been a major sponsor of this bill, Congressman Andrews of New Jersey, who has been so helpful, and Mrs. Eshoo from California, who has been so involved. And then Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for all their hard work on this issue. It's truly been a pleasure to work with all of them.

I would also like to thank Mr. McKeon and Mr. Miller again, the chairman and ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, for all their support. And then the other chairmen, Congressman Dingell and Congressman Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr. Upton of Michigan for coming down and working on this today. And then Chairman Rangel and ranking member McCrery of the Ways and Means Committee, and then Representative Camp for being the spokesman for them. I applaud them for all their efforts.

I would also like to thank former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been so supportive of this legislation. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sharon Terry and the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, as well as all of our other organizational supporters, for all their persistence and their expertise on this issue.

And Dr. Francis Collins of NIH for his testimony before all three committees in the House.

Finally, I have to thank the staff, all of the staff, who worked so tirelessly for years now behind the scenes on our behalf and put in long, long hours on this legislation. And in particular, my thanks go to Michelle Varnhagen and Jim Paretti from the Education and Labor Committee staff, and then Michelle Adams from Ms. Slaughter's staff, and Brian Peterson of my staff.

There's so many reasons why everybody should vote for this, and certainly having passed the House by 420-3 last April and the Senate 95-0, you say, This is a no-brainer; why didn't this happen a long time ago? And what's been alluded to is to get three committees in the House of Representatives to work on all of the issues, and they are so technical in how they relate to each other and how it relates to privacy and the other HIPAA and ADA and all of the things that had to be brought in here, I think everyone works so hard just to have a wonderful result. And it's no surprise that we're here, but it just took a long time.

With that, I would urge all my colleagues to vote for this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, while it is not a perfect bill, I do believe it contains a number of important improvements over prior versions of this legislation, including that which I supported a little over a year ago on the House floor. More importantly, it marks a commitment by this Congress to ensure that the laws of the United States protect American workers and health care consumers from discrimination on the basis of their genetic makeup. Because that goal is so critical, I will vote for this bill today, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, I would like to commend my colleague and fellow Member on the Committee on Education and Labor, Representative Judy Biggert, for her years of work and dedication on this important issue. She has been persistent and effective on so many issues that have come before this committee and this Congress and she should be commended for adding this important bill to her list of legislative accomplishments. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, who has been Mrs. Biggert's partner in this effort.

As I noted during our committee's consideration of this bill last year, I believe the title of the legislation before us, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, embodies a proposition that all Members of our committee and indeed our Congress would endorse. Simply put, no employee should face discrimination on the basis of his or her genetic makeup or on any other characteristic other than his or her ability to do the job. Similarly, no employee should risk his or her health insurance status simply because of the possibility that they might some day develop an illness.

This bill was drafted with those fundamental principles in mind, and I believe that through the legislative process, we have taken steps toward ensuring that the bill we send the President today ensures that those principles are fulfilled, while minimizing the potential for unintended consequences.

I would take this opportunity to point out a number of improvements in the bill that I think merit attention.

Foremost, I am pleased that the bill we will send today to the White House for President Bush to sign embodies the same logic as a past executive order issued by President Clinton to ensure that this legislation would not inadvertently serve as a broad new Federal mandate requiring all insurance plans and employers to cover all treatments related to genetic-related conditions. That is exactly the type of unintended consequences we were seeking to avoid, and I am pleased we were able to work this out.

Second, I would highlight a provision in the legislation that ensures that employers who are currently subject to a number of confidentiality and recordkeeping requirements under law are not burdened by yet another redundant set of paperwork requirements. The bill before us today provides that, with respect to genetic information, if an employer maintains employee records and treats them as it does confidential medical records under the Americans With Disabilities Act, it is in compliance with this new genetics law.

Third, I applaud a significant improvement in the bill; namely, its extension of genetic nondiscrimination protection to all Americans.

One of the issues raised during our committee's consideration of the bill was concern that the bill's protections did not adequately extend to cover children in utero or at early stages of development, or in connection with in vitro fertilization and other technologies. I am very pleased that the final bill before us addresses this issue to the satisfaction of all Members on both sides of the aisle who worked in good faith to ensure the broadest protections possible.

The Senate amendment we consider today contains a number of other improvements over prior versions, including important provisions relating to those who participate in genetic clinical testing, providing for use of genetic information in matters of public health safety, and ensuring the most focused scheme of remedies possible. These changes represent issues we were able to work through over the past year and which demonstrate how the legislative process is meant to work. We were presented with well-intentioned legislation, heard meaningful testimony on it and its potential impact on employers and employees alike, raised and debated legitimate concerns, and worked through to bridge the gap between where we began and where we stand today.

I thank the staff from both sides of the aisle and in both chambers for making this a reality.

Before concluding my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not note for the record that I am still concerned that this bill is in some respects potentially overbroad. While we all agree with the goal of nondiscrimination I discussed earlier, the facts remain that we are poised today to adopt a sweeping new expansion to Federal Civil Rights scheme, the most expansive change since the adoption of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.

As we send this bill to the President to sign into law, I would urge my colleagues to join me in remaining vigilant in the months to come in monitoring the administration of this new law to ensure that it addresses the problems it is intended to correct, and does not simply become yet another bureaucratic burden on employers or a lottery ticket for plaintiffs' lawyers.

In that same light, as courts and administrative agencies interpret and enforce these laws, I would urge them to heed the intent of Congress; namely, that this bill's most egregious penalties must be reserved for the most egregious violations of the law. If experience under this new law shows that this is not the case, I trust my colleagues will join me in supporting swift action to correct any mistakes we have made.

With that, I will conclude my comments. As I noted at the outset of my remarks, our actions today will ensure that the law of the United States protects American workers and health care consumers from discrimination on the basis of their genetic makeup, a goal I think is shared by every Member of this House. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1167.

Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res. 1167 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, on legislation relating to the following three measures:

(1) H.R. 5715, to protect the Federal student loan program.

(2) H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

(3) a bill to provide for a temporary extension of the farm bill.

The rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not an unusual procedure. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported

a number of rules that provided for additional suspension days.

This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these three time- sensitive measures. This will help us move these noncontroversial, yet important, legislative initiatives that have widespread bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, since I will be the last speaker on this side, I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.

Madam Speaker, while I had not planned to be here at this point to debate gas prices, I feel compelled to put a few things on the record.

Everybody knows that ExxonMobil announced first quarter profits totaling $11 billion, up 17 percent from last year and just shy of record profits last quarter. BP announced profits increased 63 percent; Royal Dutch-Shell 25 percent, and this increases the 5-year trend of record oil profits.

While my colleagues say we have done nothing, the fact is that we've done a great deal and they've almost consistently voted against it. For example, we have tried more than once to take away the Federal subsidies to these oil companies, to the big five, because they are awash in money, and we see no reason for them to get more from the taxpayers than they're already getting at the pump. That has been consistently fought by both the Republican Party and the President. The President calls for the same policies that he has done all along and sort of hopes for the best. For the last 7 years, congressional Republicans and President Bush doled out billions of dollars in subsidies to the big oil companies, instead of working for an energy independence plan for America which was rarely discussed even during their tenure.

We're committed to a new direction. Speaker Pelosi has called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. That would go a long way toward helping us with this. We have done this before, but President Bush says he doesn't think it would affect the price.

On Friday, the New Direction Congress called on the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law and to investigate record gas prices and possible market manipulation. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the FTC has the authority, but will not take it, to exercise the power to protect the consumer from skyrocketing energy costs. That is the Republican administration.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also included landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more efficient and to promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day by 2020, and it will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump. That is under the Democrats in Congress.

We've also passed legislation in this House to crack down on oil price gouging, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and then, as I said, to repeal the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in a renewable energy future. However, President Bush and the Republicans block these efforts every step of the way.

Cracking down on oil price gouging was opposed by 140 Republicans in the House, including all of the Republican leadership except Mr. McCotter. Holding OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans, including most of the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cole, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Granger. Repealing subsidies to the profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, almost unanimously, including all of the Republican leadership. And in every case, the Bush administration threatened to veto the bills. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate refused to even let them become bills to go to the President.

We have a good and sufficient record here. We have planned to do more. We have done more than was done in the last 7 years to try to do that.

With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1167 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

paragraph:

(4) Any bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would

have the effect of lowering the national average price per

gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.